If pro gun people are going to insist that assault rifles can't be banned due to definition problems

[dsc]

then we should come back with this. You may have shot guns, or pistols which need to be manually re cocked to be fired again and which hold only six bullets and nothing else. I bet we would get a definition of assault weapons pretty damn fast.

edit to fix

[rrneck]

1. That makes more sense.

At least you're suggesting the regulation of the actual lethality of the gun instead of how it looks.

[dsc]

4. absolutely

I don't give a rats ass how it looks I care what it can or can't shoot.

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. What side track hysteria is trying to put "looks" into the conversation?

Common sense would be about how quick is the capacity to kill - not about how it looks. That just derails logic.

[petronius]

10. I can't speak for rrneck, but when I hear the vague phrase "military style" as something

that needs to be regulated, I suspect that the term's user is not really thinking about function. And, much of the original AWB (and California's current AWB, for example) dealt with aspects that had little if anything to do with lethality.

The OP is correct: caliber, capacity, and reloading speed are all that matters. Even the propagandistic buzzphrase "assault weapon" is a distraction...

[Ruby the Liberal]

20. Lowest common denominator thinking then?

As in scary images to whip up emotion? Should have thought of that.

To me, I don't need to see the weapon - if you tell me it has the capability to fire rapidly and repeatedly from a 15+ bullet magazine, I have heard all I need to know to form an opinion. I don't even know what a bushwacker/bushmaster/whatever looks like.

[rrneck]

31. This one ran a little long.

The old AWB regulated cosmetic and ergonomic features that had little to do with the lethality of the gun. Diane Feinstein's proposed legislation tries to improve on that, but I don't think it will be successful.

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

The vast majority of the guns in circulation today are semi automatic with detachable magazines. Last I heard there were over four million AR15's alone, not to mention hundreds of millions of pistols that have been in circulation since the early twentieth century. Semi auto firearms are the gun of choice the world over, and I doubt any legislation to restrict their manufacture or circulation will make it out of committee. I just don't think there will be support for it on either side of the aisle.

Nuts and Bolts "Gun Talk"

I'm no gunsmith, but I think that almost every semi auto rifle in circulation today employs side ejection of spent shell casings. Semi auto pistols are almost exclusively a slide/blowback action that would be difficult to convert as well. That means that it would be very difficult to convert that design into something that would comply with the law as proposed because it would be difficult to load it through the ejection port. Since Feinstein hasn't told us exactly which specific guns will be banned it's hard to tell what will happen, but I'll take a guess.

If Feinstein's law bans side ejection rifles and blowback action pistols manufacturers will alter the design just enough to call it something else and keep selling them. Also, rifles like the Springfield M1A will become wildly popular since it is an excellent rifle that can be loaded from the top if it has to have a fixed magazine. The M1A is derivative of the old M1 Garand from WWII. Below are links to video on how to load them. It's not hard to imagine a fast feed stripper clip to replace a magazine making the rifle just as easy to load. If manufacturers can find a way to shove bullets into the bottom of a gun, they can find a way to shove bullets into the top of one. And they will make a boatload of money doing it.

It takes about ten minutes of research to show most gun control legislation is a fabrication to appease people rather than actually do anything to reduce gun violence. Banning "assault weapons" means banning almost every gun made. Limiting magazine capacity means the killer will just bring more mags to the next massacre.

Fearless Political Prognostication

Now, if Feinstein wants to ban top ejection rifles as well as the bulk of all the rifles and pistols made all over the world, she will be attempting a de facto gun ban. Even if it isn't intended to be so, that's what it will be. That idea will go over like a turd in a punchbowl with gun owners on both sides of the aisle. The political right will have a field day that will make the current babbling of the NRA read like Kant, and the political left will fractured among pro gun and anti gun Democrats which will cause turnout at the election to swoon. Democrats own guns, and lots of them.

This thread was posted on DU today about the ‘violent far right’, and there are certainly no shortage of complaints about crazy gun toting far right teabaggers around here. How do we square that kind of rhetoric with the desire to disarm people? A Gallup poll indicates an significant increase in firearms ownership among Democrats. Notice the increase in self reported firearms ownership among Democrats begins in late 2009, right after a significant spike in far right violence as reported in RawStory. Is the Gallup poll accurate? Well USA Today just fired them, but there appears to be a correlation between the two independently sourced sets of data. But I'm no statistician, so YMMV.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/19/west-point-study-on-violent-far-right-shows-dramatic-rise-in-attacks/attackchart-2/


http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx


Every day people post here about climate change, resource depletion, social injustice, political upheaval, and every other end of the world the sky is falling doomsday possibility out there. And right along with it they post about the need to make the guns go away or make them somehow less lethal. The reality on the ground is that when the shit gets thick people start fighting. It's always been that way, and it's always going to be that way. The United States is a pretty safe country in which to live because we are a wealthy empire stealing resources from the rest of the planet, not because we are such lovely human beings dedicated to truth and justice. The ideology industry may not want to admit it, but the people who have to live in the real world know it. Human beings think from the stomach out, meaning they will be most concerned about threats near to them whether they are likely or not. Banks that turn the housing market into a casino are an esoteric remote threat that got by everybody, but that right wing nut down the street is making his neighbors nervous. And that nervousness sells guns even if the rise of American fascism is nowhere as likely as it may seem.

Politics are driven by emotion and the current tragedy in Connecticut may get some of the proposed legislation through congress, but I wouldn't bet on it. Just because conventional wisdom says Democrats don't like guns doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of them in the closets of democrats that just won't admit it to their friends. Don't believe me? Gun owning Democrats post right here every day and we have to listen to shit like this. (post #21 in this thread) Schismatic unworkable ideologies lose elections.


How stripper clips work.

Loading the M1 Garand

[Ruby the Liberal]

49. That makes more sense - sort of

So they disguised 'regulation' as restricting certain physical features, which gun manufacturers just retooled and gave different names to?

Why not focus instead on generic capabilities as opposed to proper nouns?

Edit - and why did the guy in the second video load a gun just to pop all of the ginormous bullets back out of it? What was even the purpose of that?

[rrneck]

50. Right.

"Ban this gun and we'll make one just different enough to dodge the law but still able to do the same thing."

Regulating the generic capabilities of the gun are the logical approach to the problem. That's what Feinstein's law is trying to do without admitting it. She wants to make a semi automatic firearm shoot more slowly and the operator to have to reload more often. She's working on two of the big three characteristics: caliber, capacity, and rate of fire.

Since I don't know which guns she wants to specifically ban I can't say for sure, but I am guessing the ones she wants to ban are the ones that can be easily redesigned around her criteria (or that look really scary to her constituents). As for the others, by requiring either a fixed magazine or a ten round limit on the gun, she wants to turn the remaining rifles into single shot guns or as close to it as she can get. And that's just fine, but she needs to come out and admit it. I'm obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer and I can see what's going on, and there are a whole lot of people with a lot bigger bully pulpit who will make her proposals look as underhanded and feckless as they are.

The problem with regulating the function of firearms any more than they already are is that those regulations will be either easy to circumvent or will negatively impact the bulk of the firearms made in the world today. If you want to limit magazine capacity, fine, the bad guy will just bring more magazines to his mass shooting. Those limits won't hinder him at all, but will add bureaucratic headaches to legislators, manufacturers, law enforcement and gun owners at the cost of precious political capital. If you want to regulate rate of fire you have to step down from semi automatic to single shot fire. It's foolish to try to legislate anything in between by making a gun hard to use. Anybody that owns a gun simply won't go for it and they will see it for what it is - an effort to regulate them out of existence.

But let's say she gets her bill passed as is. Handguns and rifles will still be able to shoot ten times rather quickly unless she can ban all semi autos. What do you think the chances are that someone will shoot a bunch of people with post ban guns? Two guns is twenty rounds. The solution to all that complicated legislation is a New York reload. Just bring more guns. How many clusters of dead people is a horrible tragedy? What will that law have accomplished? Fewer mass shooting casualties? Maybe, but it seems that if a goof like me can think his way around the law, a real bad guy won't have any problem. And while keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them is always a good idea, the tighter you make gun laws the more likely you will keep somebody who might legitimately need a gun from getting one, and they will suffer for it. But you won't likely hear about those people in the news, unless our political enemies want to use them to generate political capital for themselves.

[Ruby the Liberal]

51. Thanks for explaining.

I am getting now why people are so damn paranoid right now. We live in a truly fucked up society where the answer to these tragedies is by default, more guns.

Its a real race to the bottom.

Meh.

[rrneck]

54. Yes, it is that.

I don't pretend to like it. But I don't really think the answer to more guns is more guns. I think the answer to guns is what liberals do best - help people. The problem is that all the stuff that liberals are so good at is useless at the moment one person attacks another. There is nothing in liberal ideology that I know of that offers a solution to the disparity of force between attacker and victim. I don't have any answers for that.

[kestrel91316]

21. Nobody give a rat's ass about looks

and you and your little friends know damned well what we DO care about: the ability to kill far too many people in far too short a time.

We also know that you people apparently don't give a damn about the VICTIMS - past, present, and future - of your toys.

[rrneck]

32. Well y'know...

I don't give a rat's ass what people think when they come at me with a shitty confrontational attitude.

[kestrel91316]

52. My attitude toward gun nutters is only going to get shittier at this point. So

get used to it.

I've passed the tipping point and won't keep my mouth shut on the subject any longer.

[rrneck]

53. Whatever.

It takes more than some internet snark to influence me, or anybody else for that matter. You just blast away, it'll be fun to watch.

[Politicalboi]

2. I say give them Muskets

It's what the Constitution REALLY meant.

[Thinkingabout]

14. If a musket is not good enough give them a single shot BB with lever.

[kestrel91316]

22. Yep. They are so obsessed with what the Founding Fathers intended.

Give them what those folks intended and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Well done!

Now send that to whom?

[aikoaiko]

6. Technically speaking AR15s and all semi-autos recock to be fired again and meet your definition.

Not manually, which is what I thing you were getting at, but you can see how definitions matter.

But your post implies a legislative alternative that you have no hope of achieving so its not really an effective ultimatum.

eta: Now that I think about it more I think double action only semi-auto pistols would meet a manually recocking criterion too. Your best strategy is to address capacity issues and that is really a different conversation.

[dsc]

9. actually I think it can, certainly at the state level

I also think we could pass a fugitive gun law in that if you move a gun into a state illegally you get sent to federal prison for a decade or two.

[aikoaiko]

15. Its looks like support for an AWB is slipping away so I cant see even more strict laws passing.

As I edited into my above post, I think those who would like to ban guns have the best changes with a magazine ban and not firearm bans. But 5 or 6 rounds are easy to reject.

If I were to give a magazine banner advice it would be to start at 30 rounds.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/cnntime-poll-slight-dip-in-support-for-gun-control-measures-in-last-month/

[Duckhunter935]

19. I would support

up to 20 rounds for rifles and what fits in the grip stock without extensions on handguns. This would limit my SR40C as the 15 round magazine requires a grip extension. I see no reason for 30 round magazines.

[Recursion]

27. Last I saw a ban on semi-autos polled higher than renewing the AWB

Which gives me some hope; a semi-auto ban at least does what people think it does.

[Duckhunter935]

11. I di not want to go there

but assault rifles are already heavily regulated and very very expensive.

[kestrel91316]

23. They are not regulated nearly heavily enough, given how

common they are and how common it is for them to be misused (like, uh, 100% of the time).

[Paulie]

13. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns

Single action revolvers only?

[aikoaiko]

17. Good luck with that. I don't see any real support for that type of restriction.

[Paulie]

18. Not from gun owners for sure

But it sure would make for a fairly simple law and would withstand RKBA challenges in the courts.

[kestrel91316]

24. There's plenty of support. Gun nutters are a minority and

the majority is sick to death of being bullied and murdered.

[aikoaiko]

28. The majority may not be strong enough to pull it

After an initial increase in support for an AWB, that support is already waning.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/cnntime-poll-slight-dip-in-support-for-gun-control-measures-in-last-month/

Definitions matter - especially when you have outspoken AWB proponents like Bloomberg confusing semi-auto rifles with machine guns.

[baldguy]

7. Define what it does, not the trivial technical details of it's design.

Ban weapons that can hold more than 5 rounds in the magazine. And those five rounds in less than 1 second. And those that use ammunition designed for the military. etc. etc.

[Duckhunter935]

12. can you please define

ammunition designed for the military? not sure what you meant by the less than 1 second line.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Tracer rounds for example

Dumb.

[Duckhunter935]

33. I hope you were not calling me dumb

I see no reason not to ban tracers, however I do not think that was the intent. Most calibers of ammunition were designed for the military at some point. Bullet types can get very in depth on how and when they were designed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Yup, I want to use tracers in high fire areas

Since regular ammo does not start wildfires fast enough.

[Duckhunter935]

38. we have had some

real bad fires her in the last couple of years. We really need some rain. When I at Bliss doing M2 qualifications we spent more time putting out fires then firing the weapons due to tracers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. So there you have it

Oy

[baldguy]

26. It's English. Do you need it in words less than two syllables?

Like I said - and the basic point of the OP - the trivial technical details of firearm design don't really matter. Weapons manufacturers - who are only interested in profits and don't care about protecting innocent lives - will find ways around any technical definitions. So the answer is: don't use them.

[Duckhunter935]

34. try shooting

any semi-automatic rifle and see if you can fire 5 rounds in 1 second

[obamanut2012]

46. Guns that can fire that fast are already highly regulated and restricted

It isn't something people can just go buy. Which is good -- no one needs to own a full automatic weapon.

And, it isn't certain guns that "hold more than five rounds," but magazines that do.

[Duckhunter935]

8. well go for it

and see how far it gets. I think all views should be entertained. Write your congress critter and have them introduce the bill.

[Recursion]

16. That makes significantly more sense (nt)

[samsingh]

29. since the pro-gun crowd have

accepted that automatic weapons are not legal, then they have accepted other restrictions as well.

so i agree with you.

[Duckhunter935]

36. sorry but they are legal

even tanks and artillery. Just heavily regulated and expensive as the are generally not covered under the second amendment for home defense.

and expensive
http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/952/Guns/Rifles/Class-3/Class-3-Subguns.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. And demiled

[Duckhunter935]

39. nope

just have to have a class 3 license and pay the tax and background checks. I would not pay 30K for a non working wall display.

more
http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx

How to Buy Machine Guns, Suppressors, Short-Barreled Shotguns, A.O.W.'s and Shrt Barreled Rifles, as Regulated by the ATF and the National Firearms Act, (NFA.)

It is a common misconception that machine guns cannot be owned by law-abiding citizens. This comes from the creation of a variety of confusing laws that have made purchasing a full-auto gun more difficult than purchasing a "normal" gun. But, if you can comply with the law, you may qualify to own a machine gun.

First a brief history: In May of 1986, certain laws went into effect that made it illegal for 'civilians' to own fully automatic firearms that were manufactured AFTER THAT DATE. Many fully automatic weapons manufactured, registered and tax paid BEFORE MAY, 1986, MAY BE OWNED BY AND SOLD TO INDIVIDUALS. The full-auto guns that may be owned by individuals are called 'transferable'. Some states DO NOT allow machine gun ownership at all, no matter when the gun was made, but many states do.

To purchase a transferable machine gun, you must meet certain requirements (generally the same as when you purchase another gun, but with additional scrutiny), fill out special paperwork (called a 'form 4'), and pay a $200, one-time, transfer tax. Every time a machine gun is transferred, the $200 tax must be paid-- usually by the purchaser. The steps to take to purchase a transferable machine gun are:
Find a dealer locally who can assist you in all phases of the transfer. This should go beyond helping you fill out the paperwork: they should help you locate the gun if it isn't in stock and allow you to shoot the gun while your paperwork is being processed by the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). It will usually take 4-6 weeks for the dealer to get the gun from another dealer if they don't already have it in stock (due to BATF paperwork delays).
Get your fingerprints (either by a police dept. or by a qualified fingerprinter, two imprints are needed) and two passport sized pictures taken. These will be used to perform a comprehensive criminal background check on you.
Have your local dealer help you fill out an "Application for Tax Paid Transfer And Registration Of Firearm" for, known as a "form 4".
You must have the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement (CLEO) officer that has jurisdiction over the municipality in which you live on the form 4. This could be the City Chief or the County Sheriff, for example. This is usually not a problem-- in machine gun friendly states. The form 4, CLEO signature, 2 fingerprint cards, 2 pictures, and a $200 check (your one-time transfer tax) must all be mailed to the BATF and an approved tax stamp returned before you may take possession of the gun. This may take anywhere from 2 to 5 months.


how to order
http://www.impactguns.com/content.aspx?page=howtoorder#class3

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. And demiled

You are talking a tank, demiled.

That's the way it is.

You are talking a fighter, demiled, B-24 Demiled.

Yup.

M-60 is not an M-4 Chafee.

Oh and in certain states...you are highly discouraged from having an M-60 by State Law. They do not belong in civilian hands anyway.

[Duckhunter935]

43. actually I was talking about both

you might be correct on the large weapons but machine guns do not need to be demilled

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. And they are highly discouraged

By state law in a few states *cough California cough*. And they should.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. Full Auto NFA weapons do not need demilled.

I've seen 90mm recoilles rifles being legally sold (fully functioning). I recall a FULLY FUNCTIONAL Dillon Precision 7.62 Minigun being sold for about $200k a few years ago. Functional AKs and M16s are sold all the time. I legally own an extensively modified Mac11 9mm submachingun (functional an fully automatic).

NFA weapons do NOT need to be demilled depending upon the state.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Have you seen a B-24 liberator?

How about an M-4 Chafee (light WW II tank). I have not.

Ok, there is an exception, contractors to Hollywood, who's licenses make a class III look like a walk in the park.

As I said, a Sabre in private hands IS demiled.

[jberryhill]

30. I still can't for the life of me grasp...

...the way that Glock defines "safety".

Oh, yeah, to take the "safety off", you have to pull the trigger. Doh!

[jmg257]

42. It isn't that complicated to come up with an effective law.

But it DOES take the will & support to get one passed. There will be no way to come up with an effective law that doesn't infringe on the current sensibilities of some hunter or gunner.

Skip clever sub-categories or names based on 'cosmetic' features.

Just...
Ban all repeating arms with an internal/permanently attached fixed capacity of more then 8 rounds.
Ban all repeating longarms that will accept a detachable magazine with a capacity of more then 5 rounds.
Ban all repeating handguns that will accept a detachable magazine with a capacity of more then 7 rounds.
Ban new detachable self-contained magazines with a capacity of more 7 rounds, or existing 10 round magazines containing more then 7 rounds.
Ban possession of more then 3 detachable magazines for each firearm possessed.
Ban other ammunition feeding devices with a capacity of more then 10 rounds, or that contain more then 8 rounds.

Certain C&R exemptions.

Or whatever.

[Recursion]

45. Bingo. Simple, effective laws

But those take political will.